I believe Steem was created to resist censorship and most steemian don't like censorship. However, before you get my support, I would like to ask a few questions:
- The photos are graphic, would you consider to add a warning at the top or use nsfw tag?
- Do you have the copyrights of the photos your posted?
- Are you sure you can post the photos of the minors? Do you have the permission of the parents of the minors?
All images come from open Facebook pages that the individuals chose to post on the Internet themselves to their own Facebook pages. I actually acquired them from someone else who collaborates with me from time to time, thus, I believe they fall under fair use, particularly in view of the fact these are now well known figures currently under scrutiny in the public eye and who are being researched heavily by the general public.
They are boosting their own presence on major 'news' networks around the world, thus, one would figure also that they would expect such scrutiny or else restrict public viewing of their pages to prevent it. Another way to look at it is in reverse, would they hope to have their images seen by talent scouts for their acting ability as shown on their Facebook pages if it should further their acting careers? For example, I have compiled hundreds of images of the White Helmets in Syria (who are terrorists posing (acting) as rescuers). I have researched them thoroughly for the past two years. I consider it a public service and for the good of humanity that I help reveal their al-Qaeda deception. Should I have asked them for permission to use their images? Would the terrorists have removed the images that they previously placed on their own open Facebook pages if I had ask them for their permission? You can see where this goes.
The fair use doctrine recognizes that rigid application of copyright laws in certain cases would be unfair or may inappropriately stifle creativity or stop people from creating original works, which would harm the public. So, the doctrine allows people to use someone else’s copyrighted work without permission in certain circumstances. Common examples include: criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research.
There is actually only one supposedly graphic photo amongst those used for the post and it is blurry and shot from a distance and shows a dark skinned woman who appears deceased on the floor (she is receiving no medical attention, thus the assumption). I left a message with that image that CNN's own website does not feature a dark skinned female amongst the 17 deceased victims they have posted images of online. Thus, its possible she is an actor also.
The rest of the images that appear to look graphic are actually images from the make up artist that administers their teen antigun advocates acting troupe. They are fake injuries made to look real, hence the reason I posted them. The nsfw tag is now attached, although I don't really think it is necessary. I am simply posting it to placate the few people that are concerned in regards to such.
Thanks for the explanation